Congress, NASA, Other

Griffin’s view of NASA’s plans

In a speech Friday afternoon at the Thirteenth Annual International Mars Society Convention in Dayton, Ohio, former NASA administrator Mike Griffin offered a one-sentence summary of his opinion about the White House’s plans for NASA: “We’re not going anywhere and we’re going to spend a lot of money doing it.”

He actually had a lot more to say about the current administration’s proposed new direction for NASA, and none of it was particularly complimentary. For example, the administration’s plan to hold off on a decision for a heavy-lift vehicle to no later than 2015 had interesting timing, he thought. “By the time there was any budget year that would actually have to support the development of a real heavy-lift rocket, the president who is promising to do it will be gone,” he said.

He also took some time to address what he perceived to be a conflict between government and commercial that has developed with the policy’s direction where “LEO is to be set aside essentially as a commercial preserve,” as he described it. He said it was important to have a government system capable of carrying humans to space for a variety of reasons, from its strategic geopolitical value to providing a backup should a commercial provider have an accident (and thus likely be forced out of business, he argued) to preventing a commercial provider from wielding monopolistic pricing power. “We seem to be setting up for an adversarial position between government enterprises and commercial enterprises,” he said. Both have their own values and can be complimentary, he said. He did say later that he expected that the final compromise to come out of Congress would fund commercial crew programs at a level close to the Senate version, but no higher. “I don’t think the administration is going to get their way.”

Griffin mentioned the House and Senate versions of NASA authorization bills currently in Congress, but didn’t indicate that he had a preference for one over the other. “Either one—both of those bills are, in my view, radically better than the administration’s plan,” he said. “They’re not as good, in my view, as we had, but radically better than the administration’s plan.” In a Q&A session later, though, he did appear critical of the provision in the Senate version that called for immediate development of an HLV capable of placing 70 tons into LEO. “The question is what payload do you need for human exploration,” he said, noting that various studies concluded that the Saturn V “was about the lowest useful capability for exploration beyond LEO.” The Saturn V, of course, could put about 130 tons into LEO, nearly twice the capacity of the proposed vehicle in the Senate bill (although the bill’s intent is that vehicle could be upgraded later to launch heavier payloads).

The fundamental issue of the ongoing debate, he said, is this: “Does this nation want to have a real space program or not?” (“Yes!” at least one person in the audience shouted.) “A real space program goes somewhere, goes somewhere worthy, it does something worthy when it gets there. It does it in a timeframe that is of interest to normal human beings.” And, he added later, “we’re going to pay for it. We don’t decide that we’re going to do it on half of what people tell you is needed.”

130 comments to Griffin’s view of NASA’s plans

  • So, nothing new. TheMarsSociety twitter has some others:

    how to maintain long-term policies? “every time we elect a new President we do not redecide if we want a Navy” – Griffin

    Yes, because the Navy has a clearly defined purpose that meets national needs. NASA doesn’t, or at least administrators like Griffin seem to have no idea what it is.

    How can we encourage private enterprise to offer significantly lower prices than a govt program? – Griffin

    Is the guy serious? How can we encourage water to be wet?

    NASA received more inflation adjusted $ n last 15 yrs achieving virtually nothing than spent during 1st 15 yrs 4 Apollo – Griffin

    Of course, by “achieving virtual nothing” Griffin means things that he thinks NASA should be doing, like building heavy lift vehicles and “making heroes”. See the no-purpose comment above.

    delta Vs for most asteroids are greater than required for Mars, flight times are similar, launch windows significantly smaller, question is whether asteroids are really where you would want to start deep space space exploration – Griffin

    Yes, obviously, the majority of asteroids are in the asteroid belt which are further out from the sun than Mars. Congratulations, you’re a weasel. However, there are *plenty* of asteroids which have much smaller delta-v and flight times than Mars, and it seems completely prudent to suggest that a sustained human exploration program should visit the closer targets before proceeding on to the more distant targets.

    What’s really annoying is that if you talk to Griffin in private he’s a really nice guy.. he’s measured and he gives thought to ideas other than his own.. but put him on stage (or in charge of NASA I guess) and he becomes this incredible asshole.

  • Chance

    “NASA received more inflation adjusted $ n last 15 yrs achieving virtually nothing than spent during 1st 15 yrs 4 Apollo – Griffin”

    Well, he was in charge of NASA for a portion of that time correct? In which case, he is at least partially responsible for all the “nothing” that occurred.

  • oh, and:

    1961 -> 1976
    6.360 + 12.221 + 24.342 + 33.241 + 33.514 + 32.106 + 29.696 + 26.139 + 21.376 + 18.768 + 15.717 + 15.082 + 14.303 + 11.494 + 11.131 + 11.640 = 317.13

    1995 -> 2010
    16.915 + 16.457 + 15.943 + 15.521 + 15.357 + 14.926 + 15.427 + 15.831 + 16.021 + 15.559 + 16.016 + 16.085 + 15.861 + 17.138 + 17.125 + 17.911 = 258.09300

    He’s 18% wrong, just like Zubrin when he makes the 13 year claim (http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/05/birds-of-feather.html). That’s the problem with the space community, even former NASA Administrators can’t do math.

  • Coastal Ron

    Griffin had his chance to put NASA on a sustainable path, and he didn’t do it.

    It wasn’t because it couldn’t sell a vision to Congress (Constellation), but unfortunately the hardware decisions he chose were not sustainable financially, and apparently not inspiring enough to get Congress to fully fund the program.

    The current Administration has what I consider to be a great plan, but has not been able to sell it to Congress. Now Congress is designing it’s own hardware & plan, and we’ll get a chance to see how that all works out. [insert big dose of sarcasm here]

    Bottom line for Griffin is that he did a poor job on Constellation. I hope we can learn something from it, but that remains to be seen…

  • DCSCA

    “We’re not going anywhere and we’re going to spend a lot of money doing it.– Mike Griffin” <- He would know, speaking from experience.

  • DCSCA

    “A real space program goes somewhere, goes somewhere worthy, it does something worthy when it gets there. – Mike Griffin”– <- Funny, it didn't when you helmed it, Mike.

  • Justin Kugler

    I guess we found something we can all agree on, DCSCA. :)

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I see that the Mike Griffin hate has already begun.

  • Mark, please read the end of my comment. I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m a huge Griffin fan, but everyone has their flaws.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 12:33 am

    I see that the Mike Griffin hate has already begun….

    why not

    he took a program that was pretty straightforward made every bad decision possible and now is engaged in trying to lie and exaggerate his way out of the dust bin of history.

    Although that characteristic is shared by almost every flunkie in the last administration, the last administration in general and all its supporters…saying that it is accurate does not pass for hate…it passes for stating reality.

    But leave it to you to coddle incompetence.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    “The fundamental issue of the ongoing debate, he said, is this: “Does this nation want to have a real space program or not?” (“Yes!” at least one person in the audience shouted.) “A real space program goes somewhere, goes somewhere worthy, it does something worthy when it gets there. It does it in a timeframe that is of interest to normal human beings.” And, he added later, “we’re going to pay for it. We don’t decide that we’re going to do it on half of what people tell you is needed.”

    this is of course Mike Griffin babble.

    First off he had the chance to do all those things, he had chances that almost no one in the audience will ever have…and for the funds he got from Congress he blew it.

    So that means we really should not be listening to him. It is almost like a lecture from oh Rumsfeld or who was Bush’s Sec Tres ….what of interest do they have to say? When they had the watch they blew it.

    But having said all that…the reality is that “a real space program” does none of those things. A real space program returns value for the cost that it takes from the Taxpayers.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Lorrey

    You had me rolling on the floor as soon as you said “Mike Griffin spoke…”

  • Brad

    In a Q&A session later, though, Griffin did appear critical of the provision in the Senate version that called for immediate development of an HLV capable of placing 70 tons into LEO. “The question is what payload do you need for human exploration,” he said, noting that various studies concluded that the Saturn V “was about the lowest useful capability for exploration beyond LEO.”

    ———————————————————————————————————

    Oh really? That’s a curious thing for Griffin to say, considering the Design Reference Mission 3.0 for Mars used a conceptual HLV with 80 MT of payload.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Lorrey wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 2:40 am

    You had me rolling on the floor as soon as you said “Mike Griffin spoke…”…

    lol well done REally best comment on thread

    Robert G. Oler

  • Griffin needs to read the National Aeronautics and Space Act to find out what it is NASA is supposed to be doing under the law:

    http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

    It doesn’t require NASA to send humans into space, to explore other worlds, or to own its rockets. It does require NASA to prioritize growth of the commercial sector. And it most certainly does not require pork sent to Congresscritters’ districts to perpetuate government jobs programs.

  • “Mike Griffin is Stupid!” “Constellation = EVIL!” “Ares is DEAD!” Yes you folks are really in fashion… Internet/Cyber space fashion 2010. Of course one day we’ll all look back and see that you are simply buying and wearing the platform shoes and bell-bottom pants of today. Hey- but you are right in style at the moment- must feel good… or should I say “groovy.” Ya’ dig?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Max Peck wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am

    “Mike Griffin is Stupid!”…

    OK so you dont think he is. How would you describe spending past 10 billion dollars on a vehicle Ares/Orion and having no flying hardware?

    Would you call it “smart”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Justin Kugler

    Max Peck,
    The fact of the matter is that we had a good strategy under the Vision for Space Exploration. As NASA Administrator, Mike Griffin completely ignored fundamental tenets of that strategy and the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission in favor of pushing his preferred architecture. On top of that, he deliberately waged a scorched-earth campaign on the budgets of other programs to try to make Constellation politically untenable to cancel.

    All of that has come back to bite us now. We’ve spent billions of dollars, have nothing flight-ready to show for it yet, our space technology programs have been languishing for years, and the best estimates indicate that we weren’t going get the Ares I/Orion stack until at least 2017. In the meantime, we would have had to withdraw US funding for the ISS in 2015 to keep the Constellation Program going.

    What good is an ISS version of Orion with no ISS to go to? What good is building Ares V without a lander or lunar surface systems to carry? This is Mike Griffin’s legacy. He may be an “engineer’s engineer,” but his job as NASA Administrator was to bridge the technical and policy worlds to ensure NASA could get the job done. In that regard, I think he failed.

  • Coastal Ron

    Max Peck wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Mike Griffin is Stupid!” “Constellation = EVIL!” “Ares is DEAD!” Yes you folks are really in fashion

    I’m sure the guy is a great engineer, and he certainly knew how to run NASA as an organization, not to mention charm Congress. However it is clear that Constellation will be regarded as a failure because of the personal choices he forced on the program – Ares I specifically, and especially an SRB-based crew launcher.

    To say that using a solid rocket motor to act as the only 1st stage engine for a launcher carrying humans would be “Safe, Simple, Soon” was ludicrous. First of all, it had never been done, and secondly the only way you can change the thrust profile of a solid rocket motor is by changing the casting back at the factory – how is that simple? The design of Ares I was obviously political, and was the first of many signs that Constellation was going to grow well past it original budget.

    No, Mike Griffin is a smart man, but for Constellation he suffered from too much hubris. Constellation was a technology neutral goal, and like all goals, it’s merits can be debated. Griffin’s technology solutions for Constellation were not the result of a industry competition to find the best approach, but his hand-picked solution based on a proposal he had already done. He essentially looked around an empty room, and asked if anyone objected to his design. Hubris.

    Constellation is dead, and the only person to be blamed is the man who set it in motion – Mike Griffin. Now we have to live with the zombie like pieces and parts of Constellation that some people don’t want to waste (regardless of their future value). His legacy will be around for a while, but not in a good sense…

  • Peter Lykke

    Griffin is an enigma. But what he is saying NOW is not important. It was back then, of cause.

    When he came to power, he was greeted as a wizard, “finally Nasa gets a technical boss”, he got free hands from his boss to make his program, and he showed to be a good deal better than “weeping Charlie” to cope with Congress. I have heard people from NASA talking about him as the most brilliant boss they ever had. Everything was going his way, and NASA arguably had the most able chief it ever had..

    And yet he chose a path that let NASA to the brink of extinction. All the things that are being questioned now, the human rated solid rocket, the splashing of ISS, the “gap” and the russian passenger seats, what to use Orion for, the missing funding for HLV, etc, etc. It’s all in the master plan. Even the exorbitant cost to get to the moon is there – everything in plain view. In fact, Augustines report was more of a case of the emperor’s clothes than anything else: What was done in that report was just telling everyone what we should have been able to see for ourselves – the delays and the overruns that triggered it all are just what is to be expected from a NASA- driven program of that size. The underfundings from Congress are what any plan should be able to deal with, but now it all sticks out like a sore thumb. How could anyone had conceived that plan? Was it made by some monkey? Or a kitten rolling dice?

    And yet Griffin chose it. The best tech man for the job. Unbelievable. How this is possible, is perhaps for Freuds of tomorrow to answer, but of cause he still defends the whole damn mess. To me it gives a certain restraint when I’m about to flatten someone with a technical answer. If he could give birth to a clusterf*** like this, couldn’t I?

  • GaryChurch

    The lowest useful capability for beyond earth orbit human exploration is the Saturn V at 130 tons to LEO.

    At least someone on planet earth knows the deal. All this whining about not needing a HLV is false advertising.

    The compromise is Sidemount with a pair of RS-68’s. It is the cheapest vehicle with the heaviest lift. The in line proposals are just Ares V in disguise.

    You people had better start supporting what will work for HSF-BEO. It is not about the economy- it is about the Radiation. The Inferior Lift Vehicles are going to cripple any BEO exploration. The fuel depot scheme and legos in orbit will not work.

    The space industry is a nuclear industry. Not a tourist airline.

  • GaryChurch

    As for criticism of Constellation- it was underfunded, just like the shuttle. Consider the 335 Billion dollar program for a fighter plane that is not going to well. And half a dozen other cold war toys that have become black holes for tax dollars. V-22, B-1B’s knocked down by birds, the B-2 that crashed when someone calibrated an airspeed sensor wrong, billions on Star Wars Laser armed jumbo jets and interceptor missiles. And on and on and on.

    The wailing and gnashing of teeth over NASA’s HSF budget is just ridiculous. The Ares1 was going to be our Soyuz and launch crews for the next half century. The AresV was going to put up the battlestar galactica size pieces needed for BEO exploration. It would have worked for the price of any of a number of DOD toys that never did anything except drop a few bombs on illiterate tribes in Afland.

    If you support HSF then you should not be supporting kerosene cluster rockets and money making entrepreneurs who want to retire on mars.
    The profit motive is toxic to space exploration.

  • Problem with Griffin’s mission oriented approach is that it abandons LEO access to foreign launch suppliers who subsidize their commercial space industries.

    The declining US share of satellite launches is indicative of this and of a future with little demand for the USA to have any domestic launch capacity beyond that fully subsidized by DoD.

    Result, LEO access is largely controlled by foreign countries in this decade. It’s where Griffin’s pursuit of Constellation has brought us even now.

  • Major Tom

    “How could anyone had conceived that plan? Was it made by some monkey? Or a kitten rolling dice?

    And yet Griffin chose it. The best tech man for the job. Unbelievable… If he could give birth to a clusterf*** like this, couldn’t I?”

    I think there’s two key points about Griffin that, if the Bush II Administration had just thought things through, would have made them come to the conclusion that Griffin was the wrong man for the job of NASA Administrator at that point in time:

    1) Track Record of Failure in Exploration Programming — Griffin was NASA’s Associate Administrator for Exploration during the Bush I Administration. And we all know how well the Bush I Administration’s Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) turned out. In many ways, Constellation was just a slower version of the SEI train wreck — an enormous disconnect between program content/approach and budget realities.

    2) Limited Development Experience — Aside from a couple small test satellites for the old Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Griffin has never actually been a manager in charge of planning and building any large aerospace project, certainly no multi-hundred billion dollar one like Constellation. He has been a CTO (Orbital Science Corporation) and CEO (Applied Physics Lab Space Department) of organizations that do build large aerospace projects, so he has lots of oversight experience. But he hasn’t actually been the manager in charge, day-to-day, of executing such a project.

    That doesn’t preclude one from being NASA Administrator, but if it’s during a period when NASA is going to be undertaking a major new development program, then that NASA Administrator needs such a manager working for them, rather than trying to run the show themselves. Griffin essentially fired people like Craig Steidle who had that experience (Joint Strike Fighter in Steidle’s case) and replaced them with astronauts like Doc Horowitz, who were even more lacking in the necessary experience than Griffin.

    Had someone with Steidle’s kind of program development experience become NASA Administrator, or been in charge of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate with cooperative Administrator above them, I think we would have had a much more realistic and productive implementation of the VSE. We would have at least gotten a working capsule and associated LVs out of it before Shuttle retirement, and assuming no big overruns/schedule slips, development of the exploration elements would probably have continued forward as there would be no problems for the new White House to intercede on.

    FWIW…

  • Dennis Berube

    Mike Griffin inherited the shuttle program. He had to go the direction it was moving in. He did attempt with Constellation to move beyond Earth Orbit, as a future plan and bring the shuttle program to a close. He put EXPLORATION backin the forefront of spaceflight. We had been stuck in Earth orbit for WAY to long. I liked Griffin and wish he still was in charge. Bolden is a joke and back stabber toward NASA if you ask me. If he gets a ride on the last shuttle, like he wants, you will know that is alll politics, as he pushes the Obama plan. If he didnt agree with Obamas plan, he shouldnt have taken the job!

  • Dennis Berube

    Lets face it, since we quit going to the Moon, the space program has been in a slump with regards to being stuck in LEO. The shuttle was a white elephant from the start, and many people said that. Exploration of the outer solar system should have been our target. If it takes an asteroid mission to get us back on track. That would be great.

  • amightywind

    The reemergence of Mike Griffin augurs well for the recovery of NASA in the house and senate funding bills. Obama would have been wise to keep him as administrator rather than take the advice of the kooks and radicals in his inner circle.

    In other news, ATK sees great prospects ahead.

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/06atk/

    As we all know, there is no credible heavy lift design without 5 segment SRBs.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Mike Griffin inherited the shuttle program.

    And he didn’t mind ending it, and the ISS, in order to fund the Constellation program.

    . He put EXPLORATION backin the forefront of spaceflight.

    I’m sure he had lots of input into the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), but then he chose the hardware to be used for the Constellation program, and that’s where he went wrong big time. He set NASA on a path to cannibalize itself in order to support a short-lived exploration program. If Constellation would have been allowed to continue, few other NASA programs would have survived because of the need to cover continuing Constellation program overruns.

    I liked Griffin and wish he still was in charge.

    Your opinion, which is fine. I had high hopes for him, but he made a political decision for the hardware on Constellation, and did not canvas the aerospace industry for the best way. The result, as everyone now recognizes, was a combination of wrong technical choices (SRB powered Ares I) and financially unsustainable ones (Ares V and most everything else). That he keeps defending them is a sign that he has not learned anything. I’m glad he’s gone.

    If he [Bolden] gets a ride on the last shuttle, like he wants

    You keep pushing this idea, but I have not seen anything to support it. Considering that he has already gone to space on the Shuttle four times (two as pilot, two as mission commander), and that the crew for the last two Shuttle flights are already set, your comment doesn’t seem to hold water. Maybe you have interpreted a wistful comment he made, like I’m sure every Shuttle astronaut would make, in being able to fly on the last Shuttle. This does not arise to the level of political machinations to make it happen. Fox News fan?

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Lets face it, since we quit going to the Moon, the space program has been in a slump with regards to being stuck in LEO.

    Considering that Constellation was still more than a decade away from leaving LEO, this is a nonsensical statement.

    What was even more nonsensical was Griffins desire to dump a $100B space station only 5 years after it was finished being built. Would that have been a good use of the taxpayers money? I think not.

    Despite the debate about how much science we can acquire from the ISS, the fact remains that we continue to use the ISS to gain valuable experience for living and working in space.

    Whether it’s in orbit around the Earth, or on our way to asteroids or Mars, weightlessness is the same, so the ISS is the perfect place to work out our BEO systems. If anything, the urine recycling unit being tested out on the ISS is a great example of perfecting systems in LEO before you need to depend on them BEO. Without ready access to Earth, the repairs could not have been done quickly.

    And without an affordable logistics supply system, we’ll never be able to afford getting beyond Earth’s orbit. Constellation was the wrong hardware and approach, along with being too expensive. We’re better off with it dead, and creating a new, more sustainable plan.

  • Bennett

    Peter Lykke wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Good comment, Peter. I had high hopes for a technical head of NASA. What a let down!

    That Dennis and Windy wish Griffin was still in charge speaks volumes.

  • DCSCA

    Justin Kugler wrote @ August 6th, 2010 at 11:26 pm Yep. Never was a Griffin fan. Soured on him when I caught a glimpse of his presentation in an old PBS series called ‘Space Age.’ Didn’t appear to be administrator material any more than beancounter O’Keeke was. And Griffin’s Ares, as noted on another thread some weeks back, always brings to mind that ol’ WKRP Thanksgiving episode w/Carlson’s punch line: “As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.”

  • DCSCA

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 12:33 am <- Its' not hate. The guy was just useless.

  • DCSCA

    Bottom line for Griffin is that he did a poor job on Constellation. <- On this, CoastalRon, we can agree.

  • DCSCA

    Peter Lykke wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
    Griffin is an enigma. <- Nuff said. What NASA needed was a competent administrator. 'Enigma' isn't part of the job description. He was a poor choice. A 'technician' is the last person to be steering a government agency through political storms across choppy government seas.

  • GaryChurch

    That 5 segment as a pair of strap-ons is going to be on a HLV. If you have money invested in SpaceX, sell your stock and go with ATK.

    I would think the compromise being talked about is Sidemount. And in the final block I would expect to use the 5 segment, RS-68’s, and J-2 third stage. And this is going to be the Space Transportation System for the next thirty years with 14 launches per year.

    This is what we hopefully will have to work with in regards to HSF-BEO. It is very exciting and the money is available from DOD for planetary defense. Is I have stated so many times, square one is getting water from off-world for radiation shielding and closed loop life support. So Sidemount missions to asteroids with ice is the best path.

    You commercial space fans do not have a clue.

  • Peter Lykke

    Bennett,
    Thanks. I’ve been lurking for quite a while, but with the discussion on Griffin, I just had to chime in.

  • amightywind

    the fact remains that we continue to use the ISS to gain valuable experience for living and working in space.

    $100G for studying space sickness and muscle atrophy? I say this because Newspace proponents mindlessly chant “it costs too much” to any non-SpaceX launch vehicle under consideration. They harp on the inefficiency of the Constellation program and blithely overlook the far more grotesquely wasteful ISS.

    And without an affordable logistics supply system

    Code for the orbiting fuel depot, one of the dumbest ideas in the universe of Obamaspace.

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 2:33 pm <- Dennis, Griffin was a lousy admistrator. He and Garver have been at odds w/each other for years, not that she's any better. All he's doing now is trying to defend 'his' Ares. It was a lousy idea from the get go and the weakest element of Constellation on many fronts- political, economic and engineering. One gets the sense Griffin's ego had him in the same league with Von Braun when actually he seems more aligned with Ludwig Von Duck.

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 4:07 pm <- Yep. The best thing Griffin can do for NASA now is just disappear.

  • Great coverage of Griffin’s speech. Would love to read all of it!

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm Dennis, the crux of all things ‘Griffin’ comes down to the exchange between he an Garver some years back when he said to her at some function when Ares came up, in effect, ‘You’re not qualified to pass judgment on my rocket.” Rejecting Ares is a rebuke of him and his ‘technical’ judgments. This isnt about NASA- it’s about him. His ego is bruised.

  • amightywind said: “As we all know, there is no credible heavy lift design without 5 segment SRBs.”

    IIRC, the Saturn V booster launched 130 tons to orbit and was completely liquid-fueled. The STS uses two four-segment solids and three liquid-fueled engines, which lofts the entire 125 ton Shuttle plus payload to LEO (and they could take the 33 ton external tank to orbit too if some other issues like outgassing were resolved). Both of these are examples of heavy lift without using 5-segment SRBs.

    I can think of no example of an existing or historical heavy lift booster using 5-segment SRBs. Please make the case as to why 5-segment SRBs are superior to liquid fueled rockets for heavy lift, in terms of cost, reliability, turnaround time, flight safety record, total thrust, ISP, or any other parameter you choose.

  • Max Peck wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 10:02 am

    “Mike Griffin is Stupid!” “Constellation = EVIL!” “Ares is DEAD!” Yes you folks are really in fashion…

    Mike Griffin is not stupid. He’s got 5 degrees. However, Constellation and in particular Ares-1 was the wrong choice for implementation of VSE, and ignored most of Aldridge and the VSE itself. He might have made a better deputy administrator.

    Face it folks, there ain’t gonna be another von Braun in NASA . Those type of guys are going straight to the private sector.

  • Neil H.

    amightywind:
    > The reemergence of Mike Griffin augurs well for the recovery of NASA in the house and senate funding bills. …. In other news, ATK sees great prospects ahead…. As we all know, there is no credible heavy lift design without 5 segment SRBs.

    Anybody else have the suspicion that amightywind is actually Mike Griffin? ;)

  • I would think the compromise being talked about is Sidemount. And in the final block I would expect to use the 5 segment, RS-68′s, and J-2 third stage. And this is going to be the Space Transportation System for the next thirty years with 14 launches per year.

    This is what we hopefully will have to work with in regards to HSF-BEO. It is very exciting and the money is available from DOD for planetary defense. Is I have stated so many times, square one is getting water from off-world for radiation shielding and closed loop life support. So Sidemount missions to asteroids with ice is the best path.

    You’ve really aroused my curiosity now. From just what planet are you posting this?

    Anybody else have the suspicion that amightywind is actually Mike Griffin?

    To whom is that a worse insult — abreakingwind, or Mike Griffin?

  • Egad

    “if the Bush II Administration had just thought things through”

    So true, in so many ways.

  • amightywind

    Why the animosity for Mike Griffin? He was a popular administrator among the rank and file leading the agency competently. Compare him to predecessors Sean O’Keefe and Daniel Goldin (Shower*), or current Obama crony Charles Bolden. Griffin was instrumental in developing the Ares architecture. Perhaps that is it. He made decisions instead of submitting to the engineering fringe like people on this site. He did leave a lot of bodies in his wake. I always thought the trouble would come from the Direct folks. Who would have though Elon Musk would become the villain.

    * a nickname name invented by my colleague on the Galileo Project

  • Robert G. Oler

    Major Tom wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    good comments.

    Griffin is the model of the political appointee that Henry Kissinger (aka Dr. Strangelove) once describe as someone “who can play every instrument in the orchestra but has no idea how to make them all meld together to form a theme”.

    That is not a bad analogy. The administrator (or really any “major/minor”) political appointee doesnt have to do anything more then have some notion of how he/she wants to conduct the orchestra that they head in the song that the Administration (with their help) chose to play. I am a Wagner and Beethoven fan and there are as many “themes” on the music as there are conductors….

    Griffin had a pretty good sheet of music (one I dont agree with but one which was a rationale for a human space program) and yet he could never quite figure out how to make the various parts of the orchestra play the tune. Instead what he tried to get everyone to play is “Apollo Once again this time bigger” and that song was not really applicable to today’s time and worse, none of the folks in or out of NASA are capable of playing the song.

    Thats why Griffin’s program got bloated stretched and added little or nothing of value for its cost.

    Had Griffin pondered a bit there was (and Kolker and I suggested this in an op ed) a song that could have worked. The basis of it was using NASA dollars to improve teh EELV’s and make them more competitive in the launch industry, run a tight organized program showing how the Agency that had gotten bureaucracy bound in the shuttle era had gotten the message and was setting the stage for a new era of innovative thinking.

    But Griffin didnt have a fracken clue and the Administration really didnt care. In the end he is just a “brain” who cant tie his shoes.

    There is a reason when FDR needed “the gadget” built he put Leslie Groves in Charge. Groves reputation was not of a “nuclear scientist” but
    as an officer of high intelligence, enormous leadership, tremendous drive and energy, and great organizational and administrative ability, as well as considerable ruthlessness, arrogance, and self-confidence. All in the correct proportions. Groves had a touch when it came to putting all the people together and even explaining “the gadget” in a very short time to HST.

    VSE was doomed as soon as Griffin got in charge. Mike if you are reading this, just shut the frack up. We are in a difficult spot here and like so many of the Bush turds who got us here, you have had your moments of fame. Go, just go into the good night.

    Robert G. Oler

  • eh

    “””“By the time there was any budget year that would actually have to support the development of a real heavy-lift rocket, the president who is promising to do it will be gone,” he said.””””

    Griffin is a comic. Ares V by 2028 anyone?

  • Griffin is a smart man who, unfortunately, made two critical mistakes:

    1. He advocated putting humans right on top of a solid rocket booster. While one fatal accident out of 264 launches of individual SRBs is not bad, there were never any fatal accidents involving the SSME and only one SSME malfunction out of 396 times the SSME were used. He should have gone with a SSME powered core vehicle without the SRBs for crew transport.

    2. He allowed a Moon base program to regress into an Apollo on steroids program, turning an exciting Moon base program into a boring Apollo redux program.

    A simple Moon base program would be the most exciting and scientifically and economically beneficial programs ever conducted in human history.

  • amightywind

    there were never any fatal accidents involving the SSME and only one SSME malfunction out of 396 times the SSME were used.

    More misinformation about the SRB peddled by MFW

    1 ATO STS-51F due to Engine #1 shutdown

    5 RSLS aborts (including fires) STS-41-D, STS-51-F, STS-51, STS-55, and STS-68
    1 STS-93 Near catastrophic leak in engine bell caused emergency shutdown with 4 seconds of planned firing time remaining.Loss of redundant engine controller on the same flight due to wire chaffing, caused prolonged stand down of fleet.

    The SRB’s have a far lower incidence rate.
    1 STS-51L catastrophic Oring failure.

  • Set it straight

    Marcel:
    1. He advocated putting humans right on top of a solid rocket booster. While one fatal accident out of 264 launches of individual SRBs is not bad, there were never any fatal accidents involving the SSME and only one SSME malfunction out of 396 times the SSME were used. He should have gone with a SSME powered core vehicle without the SRBs for crew transport

    Recall, the SRB leaking led to a failure of the external tank. In which, there was no protection. The SRB did not come apart and was fully recovered. The external tank is the weak point in the system. And also, since the redesign of the SRB joints, the failure rate and chance of failure is very, very low. The SRB is the safest, simplest and most powerful engine out there hands down.

  • DCSCA

    Griffin is a smart man who, unfortunately, made two critical mistakes:

    Sure, he’s smart– he’s a ‘rocket scientist’– not an administrator. He was outside the area of his competence as head of NASA.

  • DCSCA

    If Griffin really cared about the space program, he’d realize the smartest thing he could do for it is shut up and disappear. He’s left his mark, for better or worse. There’s nothing more he can contribute that wouldn’t be tainted by his own history. Go away, Mike. Just go away. The more you talk, the longer NASA loses money, time and direction.

  • DCSCA

    @Oler “Mike if you are reading this, just shut the frack up. We are in a difficult spot here and like so many of the Bush turds who got us here, you have had your moments of fame. Go, just go into the good night.”

    My God, Waldo and this writer agree. See above. The more you talk, the more damage you do by reminding people of the damage you did to NASA, Mike. You had a shot and blew it– chiefly with Ares. Even though you could make a case for SRB LV use as a rocket engineer, the politics of it smelled bad. And from a simple PR POV, a savvy administrator would have rejected any idea of advancing another long-range manned space project risking human lives a top SRB LVs. Go away Mike.

  • red

    Actually I don’t mind Griffin’s post-Administrator talks. They’re a good reminder of what went wrong during the ESAS years. Hopefully each talk brings those years back into sharp focus for the various interests harmed by Griffin’s ESAS approach during that time: NASA Science, Aeronautics, space technology, commercial space (including everything from comsats to NewSpace), non-science robotic precursors, the ISS, and so on.

    The interests in favor of something like the ESAS approach (somewhat improved into the SLS/Orion form) are consolidated, big, powerful, and organized. The other interests are individually smaller, comparatively unorganized, scattered, and not as powerful. Together they are considerably bigger, though, and with some growth and political organization, which seems to gradually be happening, they could be able to fend off future raids by SLS/Orion.

    This potential counter-balance would actually be healthy even for the SLS/Orion side, since if successful it will encourage that side to perform rather than go on raids. That’s exactly what it needs.

    Stick together and get organized, folks.

    Remember the Griffin!

  • Paul D.

    Recall, the SRB leaking led to a failure of the external tank. In which, there was no protection. The SRB did not come apart and was fully recovered.

    The SRB came apart quite thoroughly, as designed, when the linear shaped charge down its side was deliberately detonated. Pieces of it were recovered.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    A simple Moon base program would be the most exciting and scientifically and economically beneficial programs ever conducted in human history.

    As I recall, you tend to be in the camp of “Moon First”. For me, I don’t put the Moon first for exploration, because I tend to think that NASA’s limited resources should be used to do things that have not been done. This is a philosophical difference, but we’re both advocating doing something.

    If Griffin had decided on a plan that used commercially available launchers (Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy), and we would have been starting real launches of hardware by next year, I don’t think you would have been hearing the calls to end Constellation as you do now. Beside Ares I and all it’s problems, the issues with Constellation as a whole were that it was taking too long to do stuff in space, and thus it was also taking way too much money.

    I think one of the lessons from all of this is that whatever plan is decided on, that it should have near-term progress, as well as ultimate goals down the road. Otherwise it’s too easy to not see the goal, and to focus on schedule slips and cost overruns.

    There are two sayings that could be instructional for whatever the future space plan is – “do something, anything, even if it’s wrong”, and “Ready, Fire, Aim!”.

    For all the bad things said about the ISS, it got built, and we’re using it. Constellation was going nowhere fast, and in order for it to acquire more budget money, it had to stop the two most visible parts of our space program – the Shuttle and the ISS. So we would have gone from having an operational spaceship and an operational space station, to flying one or two orbital missions on Ares I in a ten year period while we waited for Ares V, the EDS and Altair to be finished. What a crock.

    If we want the American Taxpayers interested in what we’re doing in space, then we better have some action going on that they can understand, and that means people in space. And the quickest way to do that is to use existing launchers, and adding just the missing pieces. Building a government-run transportation system is going to take too long, take too much money, and not be used enough. During the time we’re waiting for it, the public will forget about space, and that will make it hard to keep NASA’s budget focused on cutting-edge technology and exploration.

    My $0.02 worth…

  • Dennis Berube

    DCSCA, I did not write that!!!!!

  • Dennis Berube

    Coastl Ron, What was wrong with Griffins idea to get a larger number of people out to the Lunar environment. Thusly was born Orion, which Im glad to say will apparently still be built, in its original design, for deep space. Bigger crew carrying ability means bigger boosters and higher cost. As to Bolden stating he wanted to be on the last shuttle. That is if there is an added on shuttle flight. You are correct in that the last two shuttle crews have been named. However none have been named if there is an extension, that I know of! It will be interesting to see just what vehicle will be used to finally launch Orion, now wont it?

  • GaryChurch

    “The SRB is the safest, simplest and most powerful engine out there hands down.”

    This statement is correct; the fewer moving parts, the fewer things that can go wrong. With the non-destructive testing, x-ray inspection, hi-reliability pouring of propellant blocks, there is not much that can go wrong. Compared to a liquid fuel engine, the solid wins in almost every department- except ISP. Not being able to shut them off is the price of simplicity- and is not the apocalypse it is always claimed to be on this site. If an engine, or motor, blows up- it blows up. Being able to shut it down does not matter after the explosion.

  • What was wrong with Griffins idea to get a larger number of people out to the Lunar environment.

    That clearly wasn’t Griffin’s idea, or he’d a chosen a much better architecture than Constellation, which seemed designed to minimize the number of people on the moon.

  • GaryChurch

    “And without an affordable logistics supply system”

    -Code for the orbiting fuel depot, one of the dumbest ideas in the universe

    Sometimes I agree with windy so completely it scares me.

  • Byeman

    ““A simple Moon base program would be the most exciting and scientifically and economically beneficial programs ever conducted in human history.”

    So many things wrong with this statement. A gov’t funded Moon base program would not be economically beneficial programs, just as a gov’t funded attempt at a manned RLV was not economically beneficial to the US except for a few small areas.

    A lunar base does nothing for science.

    How about some data to prove your assertions.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ August 7th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    “A simple Moon base program would be the most exciting and scientifically and economically beneficial programs ever conducted in human history.”

    ……

    that is your viewpoint, there is nothing in fact to support it on a national level. The Apollo landings became boring to the nation after 11.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 10:49 am

    What was wrong with Griffins idea to get a larger number of people out to the Lunar environment.

    Is 16 a large number? That’s what the Constellation program was targeting.

    So far 12 people have walked on the surface of the Moon, and that was 40 years ago. I don’t see how adding 16 more, at a cost of over $100B in taxpayer money, would be money well spent.

    We haven’t gone back to the Moon because we couldn’t, we haven’t gone back because it wasn’t worth the money to do it. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 – none of them saw going back to the Moon as a priority, so why is it a big problem if Obama doesn’t either? If it was cheap, then we would have been back there in droves (i.e. your “larger number of people”), but it’s not cheap, it’s very expensive.

    Dennis, how much are you willing to commit of your children’s & grandchildren’s tax burden to going back to the Moon? That’s really the big question here, since the Moon is a program that does not return any financial return (i.e. tax revenue) for a long time.

    That is why many of us see the benefit in lowering the cost to access space. Everyone knows that a government-run HLV is going to take ten’s of Billions to develop and run, and that would then be money that could not be used for anything Moon related.

    There are alternative ways to back to the Moon without an HLV. United Launch Alliance published an in-depth study last year, and they laid out a multi-year program that would be able to land and sustain a Moon outpost, with 4-month crew rotations and reusable systems. It also uses existing launchers for cargo and crew, so all that HLV development money could be used for Moon hardware instead. Why not do it this way?

    You can check out the study for yourself on their website (www.unitedlaunchalliance.com), then look under “Education & Exploration/Published Papers/Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″.

    So you tell me – if the Moon were a less expensive effort, would more people support going back there? And if the answer is “Yes”, then why shouldn’t proposals to do it less expensively not be given their due consideration?

    Because the question is not whether we should go back to the Moon, but how much money is it worth spending to go back?

  • Coastal Ron

    In my last post, I should not have included Bush 43 without the caveat that he didn’t support fully funding the program – or at least he never stopped Congress from under-funding it.

    As with all things, it’s not what you say, it’s what you do (aka action speaks louder than words), and Constellation under Bush 43 was not fully funded, even though it was supposedly one of his signature programs.

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 10:37 am <- Misread, my error. But my position on Griffin appears at odd with yours. Best he go quietly into the night. Nothing he can say now will help the space agency. And he is essentially irrelevant.

  • DCSCA

    “A simple Moon base program would be the most exciting and scientifically and economically beneficial programs ever conducted in human history.” <- Yes, it would be. Of course it doesnt have to be American.

  • DCSCA

    ““A gov’t funded Moon base program would not be economically beneficial programs, just as a gov’t funded attempt at a manned RLV was not economically beneficial to the US except for a few small areas.” Nonsense. But you go on believing otherwise. It’s amusing.

  • DCSCA

    A real space program returns value for the cost that it takes from the Taxpayers. Robert G. Oler

    Which is exactly what NASA has been doing for 50 years.

  • Dennis Berube

    Coastal Ron, They are already going to pay for my up coming retirement. Why not the Moon..? Just kidding of course. However we have no idea of the benefits we will acquire as we head back out into deep space. Like Kennedy said, we do these things cause they are difficult, not cause they are easy. We need another Kennedy in charge.

  • Like Kennedy said, we do these things cause they are difficult, not cause they are easy. We need another Kennedy in charge.

    Doing things because they are difficult is a stupid reason to do things. And Kennedy wasn’t that interested in space.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA,

    Where is the proof of your assertions?
    “Nonsense”? Most of your posts are nonsense. You have yet to provide any logic to support your posts. Most of your replies are childish taunts.

    NASA has not “returns value for the cost that it takes from the Taxpayers”. especially the manned program. The shuttle made spacecraft more expensive, is a inefficient means to orbit, it had costly standdowns. NASA mostly just funnels taxpayer’s money to certain parts of the country and doesn’t do much for the rest of the country.

    I should know, I am a NASA employee

    Grow up and provide some data, instead of asinine retorts

  • sen

    Whats really pathetic here is the mars society. When i joined, at the start as a college student, it was all about can do lets do this. Look at it now. A bunch of sad sacks, with all their hope in congressional action that will never happen. Embracing the like sof grifith. Nothing but forum snipers and aged hacks like zubrin, whose advocacy has degenerate dinto slavish orthadox reverence for “the plan”. MEanwhile real things are happening out there, and these sad sacks still thing congress is the answer. pathetic.

  • Martijn Meijering

    aged hacks like zubrin

    I wouldn’t call Zubrin a hack. I disagree with his views, but I respect him, at least on a technical level. To paraphrase one of my heroes: the man’s a lunatic. I like that in a person.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    However we have no idea of the benefits we will acquire as we head back out into deep space.

    You keep getting rejection of the Constellation program with rejection of exploration – they are not the same.

    I want NASA to do more exploration, but their budget is focused on building a government-run transportation system that is so expensive, it leaves little money to actually DO the exploration. How stupid is that?

    BTW, did you ever look into the economic benefits of the COTS/CRS program, and how a commercial crew program modeled on that would SAVE NASA MONEY? With the money they save, we want NASA to use those newly available funds to do more exploration.

    You’re still not understanding the motivations of the people you’re debating/discussing.

  • Byeman, you’re not a NASA employee, you’re a disembodied voice on the interweb. Stop throwing around credentials that you’re unwilling to backup.

  • Byeman

    Waddington, you are no different. Plus a software engineer has no credentials wrt spaceflight

  • Byeman

    Any ways, people know who I am

  • Byeman, I don’t claim credentials, you do. No-one knows or cares who you are. Make your argument stand on it’s own not with “I say so cause I work for NASA”. Griffin worked for NASA too.

    Mark, I agree with you there is significant scientific gain to be had from a lunar base. My argument has always been: so what? There was significant scientific gain to be had from sequencing the human genome and they had to fight for a mere $3 billion to do it. If science is the goal of space activities then get ready for a drastically reduced budget to do them.

  • Max Package

    Package here. Max Package.

    I have no idea what NASA is supposed to launch with this HLV that Congress is insisting that it build. There’s no money to build any actual payloads because NASA will spend most of the money on the launcher.

    As for Griffin, all you can say is: Thanks for coming in, Mike. Now STFU, Mike.

  • Dennis Berube

    The HLV could lift the Orion with a kicker stage to propel it our of Earth orbit, alnd into deep space. I think that is the goal, isnt it? Maintain a deep space ability. Originally Orion would have been lofted on Ares 1 without it having a kicker stage, and only be able to reach orbit. I think this idea follows the Saturn 5 design where it could lift everything needed for a lunar run.

  • What I find ironic is that the DIRECT plan (ie 75mT 12m now, up to 130mT later, if needs be at a given tech progress) has been criticized by Mike and company as being “too small” and by the current launch industry as being “too big”.

    I like to think of it as just right myself.

    If one is adamantly opposed by two diametrically opposed view points does that by definition make you right?

    Not sure, but it sure is a great location to form a compromise. That is if you can survive being attacked by both sides at the same time for opposing reasons.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Byeman, I don’t claim credentials, you do. No-one knows or cares who you are. Make your argument stand on it’s own not with “I say so cause I work for NASA”. Griffin worked for NASA too.

    By their fruits shall ye know them.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I like to think of it as just right myself.

    Too big actually. Only interesting to rocket fanboys and people with an economic interest.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I think that is the goal, isnt it? Maintain a deep space ability.

    You don’t need an HLV for that. The Constellation plan was LEO rendez-vous with a cryogenic upper stage capable of acting as an EDS. You can do the same with existing EELVs. That could get your capsule and other hardware to L1/L2, which is the gateway to the moon, Mars and beyond. It is such a strategic spot that you could even use noncryogenic propellant from there on outward (and even back!), and we already have mature noncryogenic refueling capability. Alternatively we could wait and see if cryogenic depots work out first, with noncryogenic propellant remaining available as a backstop. In either event we would not need HLV and in either event we could use propellant transfer and exploration to jump start RLVs and thus open up space for mankind.

  • If one is adamantly opposed by two diametrically opposed view points does that by definition make you right?

    No. This is a logical fallacy often employed by political “moderates” (i.e., people lacking in coherent principles).

  • Martijn Meijering

    No. This is a logical fallacy often employed by political “moderates” (i.e., people lacking in coherent principles).

    Religious apologists too, such as the early Christian Church Fathers (my father’s subject, which is why I know this).

  • Rand, I agree but then that logic forces one to believe that one side must be completely bat crazy wrong or the other side must be completely bat crazy wrong because by definition two diametrically opposed positions can’t both be right at the same time.

    I have found that disagreements among knowledgeable people of good will can usually be traced to the importance each side places on various elements in their plan and naturally lacking in their oppositions plan. Layered upon that rational debate are the demagogues that are either completely clueless or composed of those that will, purely for understandable self-serving political or financial gain, align with one internally self-consistent meme or the other.

    The solution is often a rational plan developed by those without a political or financial dog in the hunt that brings forth the good ideas from both camps while minimizing the disadvantages inherent in any myopic mindset (all commercial vs all government, all HLV vs No HLV, no tech vs all tech, start over vs stay with what works etc.).

    In this case a compromise plan can actually be better than what either extreme would force on the other side if they were king. Of course in a republic no one is king, as such whether a compromise plan is wrong, right or better, the process we just went through is none the less a basic reality of our political system. A process that anyone who wants public money, regardless of whether they call themselves ‘commercial’ or not, must go through. I for one prefer it significantly over the tyrannical political systems myself. I’m sure you would agree.

    I know you will likely disagree but I think our representative political process actually produced a better plan in the end because I truly think both sides had some very good points. When that isn’t the case then the compromise will be worse than one of the extremes but better than the other extreme by definition as well. Ironically both you and Mike Griffin agree that the compromise is better but not as good as your unvarnished plans. Surely you see my main point don’t you?

    My primary fear, and one you, me and Mike Griffin along with others should share at this point in time, is that even a good plan, however arrived at, can still be driven off a cliff if it’s managed poorly with little regard to engineering, budgetary and/or political realities. In addition, poor management and hostility towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% of the time seems to go hand in hand from my seven years of direct experience at all levels in this debate.

    You can tell the pioneers because they have arrows in the front and in the back. Having taken arrows from both extremes in this debate I guess I qualify. Don’t think of it as compromise as much as a product of those who are sincerely attempting to be a peace makers so we can get on to making history once again.

  • “It does it in a timeframe that is of interest to normal human beings.”

    This statement by Mr. Griffin made the story worth reading and is probably the only part that the current NASA planners, whatever house they reside in, need pay close attention to.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Stephen Metschan wrote @ August 9th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    >==
    > I have found that disagreements among knowledgeable people of
    > good will can usually be traced to the importance each side places
    > on various elements in their plan and naturally lacking in their
    > oppositions plan. Layered upon that rational debate are the
    > demagogues that are either completely clueless or composed of
    > those that will, purely for understandable self-serving political
    > or financial gain, align with one internally self-consistent meme
    > or the other. ===

    I don’t think that’s it in this case. Oh there are those expecting their pet company or project to benefit, but more then that are folks – even folks who normally are intelligent and rational – who are frankly desperate. More then a tertiary exam of the situation does not show a rosy future for space. Massive layoff’s of astronauts and flight planers/trainers, Bolden talking about the US never going past LEO unilaterally again, big chunks of NASA budget moving from operations to pork, or re-researching technologies used operationally, or in eternal research programs, for several decades aerospace industry leaders talking about cutbacks to the point of the US losing its aerospace industry soon.

    If the truth is unthinkable, you cling viciously to your pet illusion. I’ve seen well known blogsters ADAMANTLY insist that Commercial crew will trigger NASA to fly not 2 but dozens of maned flights per year to ISS. Utterly nonsensical and certainly unprecedented in the way federal budgets work.

    I’m not sure what Rational plan would work in the current environment. But judging from the heated, often irrational, defense of points – by folks who generally were reasonable a year ago say – suggests they don’t see one.

    Dave Livingston mentioned a personal conversation with someone big in newspace, who was adamantly supporting very optimistic interpretations of Obamaspace based on a lot of reading between the lines. When asked off line what if things are just what he says, adn as they seem – he said that can’t be, it would mean the end of the space program and most of commercial space and newspace, SO THAT CAN’T BE IT.

  • Stephen, don’t forget that it’s entirely possible for both sides to be wrong.

    And that’s often the case when it comes to debates about NASA.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 5:44 pm <- ROFLMAO. Speak for yourself. You've been discredited repeatedly. now run along and be a good little Musketeer. Stop talking. Start flying.

  • DCSCA

    @Bycycleman <- NASA has not “returns value for the cost that it takes from the Taxpayers”. especially the manned program. <– It has. But you go one believing it hasn't. It's amusing. Better still– stop talking, start flying, Musketeer.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman -“I should know, I am a NASA employee.” <– Plenty of deadwood at that agency, as you may know all too well. You may just be part of the problem- so be prepared to reacquaint yourself with the term 'jettisoned.'

  • I’ve seen well known blogsters ADAMANTLY insist that Commercial crew will trigger NASA to fly not 2 but dozens of maned flights per year to ISS.

    Then I’m sure you can provide at least one example.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    Based on history, you can’t.

  • Kelly, Dr David Livingston is a lovely old man, you leave him out of this :)

  • Kelly Starks

    >Rand Simberg wrote @ August 9th, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    >> I’ve seen well known blogsters ADAMANTLY insist that Commercial
    >> crew will trigger NASA to fly not 2 but dozens of maned flights per
    >> year to ISS.

    > Then I’m sure you can provide at least one example.

    That would be rude — I think, though it was posted on his blog?

  • Kelly Starks

    > Trent Waddington wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 12:52 am

    > Kelly, Dr David Livingston is a lovely old man, you leave him out of this

    Yeah I like Dave, though I fear the space advocates are burning him out.

    :(

  • byeman

    DCSCA, you have yet to be credited much less to be discredited. As for my job, I am very secure since I enable NASA’s use of commercial space services. Specifically, I was involved with putting many commercial companies on contract with NASA.

  • Bob Smith

    Kelly, Dr David Livingston is a lovely old man, you leave him out of this

    Dr. David Livingston is a teabagging libertarian crank without an original thought of his own.

  • That would be rude — I think, though it was posted on his blog?

    What was posted on whose blog?

  • Kelly Starks

    > What was posted on whose blog?

    The comment I mentioned.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Bob Smith wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 9:45 am

    > Dr. David Livingston is a teabagging libertarian crank without an
    > original thought of his own.

    Disgusting, but indicative of the quality of debate in many cases.

  • You said “well-known blogsters” posted such a comment. Who are they, and what did they actually say?

    We’re still waiting for some actual evidence. We won’t hold our breath, given your penchant to just make stuff up.

  • Kelly Starks

    Speaking of indicative of the quality of debate in many cases.

    Its a manors thing Rand. When you grow up you’ll understand.

  • John Smith

    Its a manors thing Rand. When you grow up you’ll understand.

    I hope to live in a big manor when I grow up too, Kelly, just like you.

  • Call me crazy, but I think it’s bad manners to accuse unnamed people of making nonsensical statements, and then refuse to substantiate it, to try to make some kind of nonsensical point. As I said, the reasonable conclusion is that you’re making it up, particularly given your history.

  • DCSCA

    byeman wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 9:24 am <- Part of the problem, not the solution.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm “Call me crazy…” <- Too easy. 'Crazy' seems harsh for a fella who is at ease with terms like 'stupid' and 'moronic', which actually betray insecurity.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    > Call me crazy,==

    Your crazy.

    >== the reasonable conclusion is that you’re making it up, particularly given your history.

    My history – your slander?

  • Byeman

    DCSCA,

    Doesn’t know solution, the problem or anything about spaceflight. Just makes childish comments. He is the poster child for space forum trolls.

  • My history – your slander?

    No, your history, as could be easily documented in just the last few threads, by me or Coastal Ron.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 9:25 pm <- bureaucrat.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 10:47 pm History, as we know, is not your strong point.

  • vulture4

    A real space program returns value for the cost that it takes from the Taxpayers. Robert G. Oler

    Which is exactly what NASA has been doing for 50 years. DCSCA

    My own view is that NASA provided a greater financial return during its first 45 years, from 1915 until 1960, when it was a supporting partner for the aviation industry and an instrument of US industrial policy, then during the last 50 years when it was primarily flying missions with no commercial impact.

    “Compared to a liquid fuel engine, the solid wins in almost every department- except ISP. ”

    What keeps us on the ground isn’t ISP, it’s cost. Has anyone here actually walked along the Ares, Delta, and Falcon processing flows, from their arrival in Florida to their launch? Examined the facilities and equipment required, the maintenance and operational costs for each building, structure and vehicle, the man-hours and hazards for each operation? The SRB is heavy, hazardous, and requires vertical assembly. As a result the Ares requires the VAB, MLP, and crawlers. There are huge maintenance requirements, interminable hazardous crane lifts, immense facilities and machines that must be maintained every day of the year for the 2-4 launches the program could actually support. Compare it to the Falcon, with horizontal integration, a low hangar and a few hundred feet of railroad track, or the Delta that doesn’t even use a crane except to add the payload? The processing cost for the Ares is probably ten times that of the Falcon with about the same payload. It simply isn’t practical. Unfortunately Mike Griffin apparently did not consider this.

  • byeman

    DCSCA wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 11:36 pm <clueless about spaceflight, which has been proven over and over

  • mmeijeri

    What is it about solids that made NASA think they were cheap? Were they simply wrong, or was it just development, not operations, that was cheap? ESA seems to think they can make their solids substantially cheaper by – among other things – using composites.

  • DCSCA

    byeman wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 3:23 pm <- Part of the problem, not the solution. A paper jockey, no more, no less. But manned space advocates know this.

  • DCSCA

    “My own view is that NASA provided a greater financial return during its first 45 years, from 1915 until 1960, when it was a supporting partner for the aviation industry and an instrument of US industrial policy, then during the last 50 years when it was primarily flying missions with no commercial impact.” <- This may what Texas textbooks say but in the real world, NASA was created in 1958, not 1915. Let's assume you're referencing NACA, which was dissolved and elements there of absorbed into NASA in '58 — but how you measure and determine 'value' is relative. There's more to it than just finance. And, of course, the famed 'Cernan Intangibles' carry value as well.

  • GaryChurch

    “Compare it to the Falcon, with horizontal integration, a low hangar and a few hundred feet of railroad track, or the Delta that doesn’t even use a crane except to add the payload?”

    Go ahead and compare it. 6 million pounds of thrust vs. Inferior Lift Vehicles that will cripple human space flight. No comparison. You have to pay to play.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 8:49 pm < is just jealous. Doesn't have a role in any spaceflight program.

  • Kelly Starks

    > vulture4 wrote @ August 10th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    >== My own view is that NASA provided a greater financial return
    > during its first 45 years, from 1915 until 1960, when it was a
    > supporting partner for the aviation industry and an instrument of
    > US industrial policy, then during the last 50 years when it was
    > primarily flying missions with no commercial impact.==

    NASA didn’t exist before 1958, NACA existed then — and probably was more productive then NASA.

  • Kelly Starks

    > mmeijeri wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    > What is it about solids that made NASA think they were cheap?==

    Cheaper to design.

    Talked to one guy who was no the team at JSC and he said they came in on a Thursday afternoon and told them Monday morning Nixon needs to have on his desk a redesigned shutle that retains the lift and on orbit abilities – but costs half as much to develop as the then current 2 stage fully reusable flyback design. The result was what we’ve been flying for 30 years.

  • GaryChurch

    “The result was what we’ve been flying for 30 years.”

    I usually skip over your posts but if there is any truth in that- it would explain a great many things. I consider it plausible because of experiences I have had.
    I was present many years ago when the coast guard made a brave attempt to get input on a new medium range helicopter they were acquiring. For some reason I am hearing warning bells going off talking about this so I will have to be vague but it goes like this;
    We knew what type but not the specifics of the model. We actually had flight mechanics and pilots from other services who had worked on many of the different models. They put us all in one room and began to present the features they were looking at and took any comments from our group of about 60. It went well I thought. One of the big issues that came up that everyone breathed a sigh of relief over was blade fold. The ex-navy mechs all agreed that the auto blade fold system was a can of worms. The pilots commented that our cutters were really too small to operate this large of a helicopter so it was not really needed.

    Unfortunately a couple months later I had a conversation with an officer in the program from HQ- who had not been at this meeting- who told me that a few weeks previously a “working group” at HQ had decided to go with the blade fold. I was kind of upset about this and asked him why and he said, Well, it’s nice to have, and it would be more expensive to take it off the navy model we are buying than to leave it on.

    I worked on that blade fold system for years afterward and sweated blood troubleshooting and fixing it a hundred times. The huge number of hours spent testing and inspecting and the down time and parts cost uncounted millions over those years- and may have contributed in several cases to people dying at sea because a helicopter was not available (but that is hard to prove of course). They tried landing the helicopter on cutters a couple times and sure enough it was too big. Even if we had bigger boats the blade fold was really so the aircraft could get below deck on an aircraft carrier in a hurry. Traditional blade folding with a team using crutches and a guy on the head with a rubber hammer was sufficient on single aircraft vessels. They system was never to be used operationally but a couple guys in a meeting looking for points with their boss pushed it and the world was stuck with it.
    Not nice to have.
    Not too expensive to take off.
    After a decade of struggling with this Albatross it was finally removed from the helicopter at much greater expense than doing it initially.

    This is how screwed up machines like the space shuttle come into existence. A vehicle far hotter and more dangerous than any fighter plane but without a single escape system. Underfunded and pushed by a clique to meet their own agenda. An agenda divorced from the purpose of the machine.

    This is how the profit motive also works. If you are trying to make money with something- it is just a different clique and agenda.
    The profit motive is toxic to space exploration. There is no cheap.
    FWIW

  • DCSCA

    Kelly Starks wrote @ August 12th, 2010 at 4:13 pm <- Yeah, well, you're dealing with 40-somethings now who've got more memories of their Hot Wheels collections and Farrah Fawcett posters than the damage done to the space agency by the Nixon Administration.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ August 11th, 2010 at 9:59 pm ??? Odd- every taxpayer does- even you.

  • Kelly Starks

    > GaryChurch wrote @ August 13th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    >>“The result was what we’ve been flying for 30 years.”

    >== if there is any truth in that- it would explain a great
    > many things. I consider it plausible because of experiences I have had.==

    Yeah at the time I aws shocked, 25ish years later having bounced though many other programs — I’ve seen worse.

    Still hurts to think what might have been if they had a couple weeks to thnik through it.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>